Respect for Beliefs...

smiles302

What does it mean to say you respect someone else's beliefs?

I have been thinking about it lately and I don't think I do. I got thinking after a conversation with a very religious friend after the march for marriage. We'd never discussed it before, so I just found out she believes homosexuality is wrong, a sin etc.

At the same time I have a number of friends who call themselves Catholic but don't tick many of the boxes for what the Catholic belief system is supposed to be about.
I wouldn't respect the beliefs of a vegetarian who talked about how they thought it was disgusting to eat animals but ate chicken just because they like chicken...
There are both as confused a stance in my opinion.

I do respect some religious people's stances and opinions. I respect bits and pieces of some belief systems but I would be lying to say I respect that they have a "religion".

Has the phase "to respect another's beliefs" come to mean you don't go out of your way to argue with religious people?

It seems a strange definition of respect... no?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Tim Robbins

If someone has done their research and comes up with a different conclusion than me I'd respect that. Jackass is religious and I'd respect he's done his research. He has read more atheist books than most atheists.

However, if someone does very little research and just copies someone else and goes around spouting their believes as if they are infallable and are just very dogmatic - I don't respect that.

So for me it's about style as opposed to conclusion.

However, there's also a question of tolerance. Some people are very very tolerant and others like myself can prone to bouts of impatience and just don't suffer fools.

Nodin

As long as I'm not expected to have to do anything or be interfered with and others likewise, I'm happy for everyone to do or believe what the hell they want. Its not a very deep phillosophy, but I find it does me grand.

philologos

smiles302 wrote: »

What does it mean to say you respect someone else's beliefs?

I don't know what it means.

smiles302 wrote: »

I have been thinking about it lately and I don't think I do. I got thinking after a conversation with a very religious friend after the march for marriage. We'd never discussed it before, so I just found out she believes homosexuality is wrong, a sin etc.

As do most Christians, Muslims and Jews in the world. In these respective belief systems we acknowledge that God has ordained a certain system of life for those who aim to follow Him. The sole purpose of theistic morality systems is to glorify God in all aspects of life, this includes sexuality, but also ranges into issues such as financial dealings, personal relationships, work, and so on. Blowing up sexual ethics as if it is more important than any other ethics is a category mistake when looking at Abrahamic belief systems.

The nature of what this way of living differs between Christianity, and the others namely Judaism and Islam in that we don't do what is good in order to be forgiven, rather people are forgiven in order to do what is good. It is radically different in this respect.

smiles302 wrote: »

At the same time I have a number of friends who call themselves Catholic but don't tick many of the boxes for what the Catholic belief system is supposed to be about.
I wouldn't respect the beliefs of a vegetarian who talked about how they thought it was disgusting to eat animals but ate chicken just because they like chicken...
There are both as confused a stance in my opinion.

Nominalism is confusing to say the least.

smiles302 wrote: »

I do respect some religious people's stances and opinions. I respect bits and pieces of some belief systems but I would be lying to say I respect that they have a "religion".

As a Christian I don't expect you to "respect" my beliefs. I expect my beliefs to be offensive to other individuals who don't share them.

I strongly disagree with a lot of other belief systems and this leaves me unable to respect them. This is what one should expect particularly when different belief systems contradict one another.

N.B There is a line between respecting beliefs and the person. You may not respect beliefs, but personally I would find it incredibly rude if people were to be intentionally blasphemous with the intention of provoking or frustrating another person. I don't honestly mind when it is clearly in jest, but this is what frustrates me about most of the new-atheists in that in many cases they are just glorified provocateurs. I don't mind reading such views, but I certainly think people should be considered in talking about their beliefs. This applies to everyone.

smiles302 wrote: »

Has the phase "to respect another's beliefs" come to mean you don't go out of your way to argue with religious people?

It seems a strange definition of respect... no?

It is a strange definition.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

However, if someone does very little research and just copies someone else and goes around spouting their believes as if they are infallable and are just very dogmatic - I don't respect that.

This frustrates me about a good few in the atheist camp (not all by any means). However, those who refuse to read the Bible for themselves, yet use the Reason Project & Skeptics Annotated Bible without thinking do frustrate to no end as they are unwilling to think for themselves.

Most atheists off-boards / offline are willing to talk without this which I appreciate.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What religion is that? :pac:

Truley

I have alot of disrespect for various religious beliefs but respect a person's right to hold them providing they are not harmful. I realise that a person and that person's beliefs are often one and the same which is why I know if I went into an unprompted rant about the stupidity of the catholic religion that it would be personally offensive to catholic people around me. By mocking their religion, in a certain context, I'm also mocking them. Which is why I will only really criticise religion on an internet forum or in the real world in a debating context. I guess that's what you would call respecting religious beliefs.

My "respecting" of other peoples beliefs is rather selfish. I stay out of their way in the hope that they will do the same for me.

Unfortunately there are too many people who believe they have the right to ram their beliefs down my throat. At that stage, I usually think all bets are off, and I'm completely free to rip them apart (If i can be bothered).

But I am rather law abiding person depending on the laws of the country I'm currently in. But, outside of formal law I'll stick to my own value/belief system.

philologos

What constitutes ramming beliefs down their throats? - Starting a conversation about God or something or is it something more stark? Just curious on this.

Links234

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

this would be my view as well, I would respect someone's right to hold beliefs

I think it becomes a problem when religious majorities force their beliefs on others through laws, and infringe on people's human rights. for example, when those beliefs stand in the way of marriage equality, that's just flat out wrong in my opinion. or the proposed bill in uganda that seeks to jail or execute homosexuals based on "gods law"

someones beliefs shouldn't get to infringe on someone else's lives, and it's a horrible shame that they do.

prinz

Links234 wrote: »

I think it becomes a problem when religious majorities force their beliefs on others through laws, and infringe on people's human rights.....

The problem here is that it is often impossible to distinguish..... religious people can have beliefs outside of their religions which sometimes coincide with their religious beliefs. Do we ban them from voting/legislating?

You could say religious beliefs shouldn't infringe on someone else's life, however in our world beliefs of all kinds; social, religious, political, legal, etc infringe on us all.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

What constitutes ramming beliefs down their throats? - Starting a conversation about God or something or is it something more stark? Just curious on this.

Well, I'd count those that have ignored the first two rejections of their offers for enlightenment. Jehovah Witnesses (on a religious level) are a prime example of this, basically being so annoying (persistent) that you end up listening to their dogma. I've also encountered other religions/sects which have been more aggressive almost to the point of offering violence if you don't listen to what they say.

But TBH When I talked about beliefs I wasn't just talking about religious ones. I'm a smoker, who doesn't really mind the smoking ban or showing some respect when smoking. But there are a host of smoking nazi's who shove their objection to smoking in your faces, even though it has no impact on their lives. That does annoy me. The assumption that just because I'm doing something which they disagree with, that they have a right to interfere with me.

Sleepy

As long as I'm as entitled to my view that someone is an utter waste of brain matter for holding idea X, I guess that person has to be entitled to believe X.

Religious beliefs are ungrounded in reality and, as such, need to be kept away from the State and Education system. If someone wants to believe a flying spaghetti monster created the world unintentionally, that's fine by me as long as no laws are made on this basis and our schools teach no religion with a default answer of "There's no proof that any god(s) exist" if children ask their teachers about it.

Any 3rd level research into areas such as theology should not be forbidden but public money shouldn't be wasted on it.

philologos

Sleepy wrote: »

As long as I'm as entitled to my view that someone is an utter waste of brain matter for holding idea X, I guess that person has to be entitled to believe X.

This isn't respecting the people either.

Rest of your post is about imposing your atheism on society, which isn't secularism. Your extreme views shouldn't be respected, but I respect you as an individual. That's the difference.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

This isn't respecting the people either.

Well, as long as such an opinion stays inside his head then I'd say it is.

I personally think anyone that regularly gets drunk on a Saturday night (and makes it a measure for a successful night) is a complete and utter Muppet, but I don't go around telling people that. I smile slightly, perhaps roll my eyes, but let them continue without my spoken or obvious disapproval. It's one form of respecting people's right to be a Muppet. Just like my personal smoking is.

Am I wrong in thinking that respecting the people means keeping such opinions to yourself?

philologos

You still disrespect them even if not articulated it may affect ones subconcious actions towards another. Actually more than likely it will.

Think about ad-hominem fallacy, it applies to this subject.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

You still disrespect them even if not articulated it may affect ones subconcious actions towards another. Actually more than likely it will.

Well, personally, I think that's extremely unrealistic. You cannot, and should not expect to control what goes on inside of peoples heads.

I find extremely "camp" people irritating. And yet, I've worked quite closely with them in an office context over the years. My professional attitude is impeccable but my irritations about them still exist. As long as they do not transfer into interactions, they have no bearing whatsoever beyond what goes on in my internal dialogue.

Think about ad-hominem fallacy, it applies to this subject.

I would if i understood what it meant.

Fluorescence

Over the last year I've finally come to terms with the fact that I don't believe in a deity anymore. It was an extremely difficult thing for me to do, because while in the back of my mind I knew I didn't believe (for years), I desperately wanted to. I adored that conviction that there was something after death, that there were people I'd loved who died floating around somewhere. I actually had (in my mind) a pretty turbulent relationship with God, and acknowledging my atheism led to a lot of resentment toward myself for allowing myself to be so upset and afraid of something that was never real.

So while I don't believe what most religious people do, I respect their right to believe what they want. I don't force them into debate, I don't ridicule or harass them. I know what it meant to me to believe, and I honestly believe life is much tougher if you don't have that deep-rooted conviction that there is a higher power looking out for you and your loved ones. I wish I still had that, so I will never belittle anyone for retaining it.

As for particular views like homosexuality is a sin and all that jazz, I will debate those with the view-holder. I will usually remind them that these views were usually established by a church rather than coming from a prophet. I don't respect people who shít all over someone else's personal choices in this way. I despise militant atheists as much as hard-core Christians - basically anyone who forces their beliefs upon others.

Sleepy

Jakkass wrote: »

This isn't respecting the people either.

The topic isn't about respecting people, it's about respecting beliefs. I'm of the opinion that respect, like trust, has to be earned. I'll be polite and "respectful" to people I don't respect, who of us doesn't have to be on a daily basis?

Rest of your post is about imposing your atheism on society, which isn't secularism. Your extreme views shouldn't be respected, but I respect you as an individual. That's the difference.

Where's the imposition of atheism in that post? Even the sentence "There's no proof that any god(s) exist" isn't atheist, in fact, I'd imagine many theists (either side of the fence of agnosticism) could agree with that statement given the converse definitions of faith and proof. To quote Douglas Adams:

`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic."

An insistence on separation of church and state isn't atheism.

philologos

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, personally, I think that's extremely unrealistic. You cannot, and should not expect to control what goes on inside of peoples heads.

I don't expect to. I can still comment on what I think of this thought process and it certainly isn't "respecting others".

Deleted User wrote: »

I find extremely "camp" people irritating. And yet, I've worked quite closely with them in an office context over the years. My professional attitude is impeccable but my irritations about them still exist. As long as they do not transfer into interactions, they have no bearing whatsoever beyond what goes on in my internal dialogue.

Being irritated with how people act isn't the same thing as being irritated with people for who they are.

Deleted User wrote: »

I would if i understood what it meant.

An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise

AKA, when one criticises a person for who they are rather than criticising the views that they may hold.

If one is making an argument about why they don't or do believe in X, and someone comes along and insults this person rather than criticising their argument it is an ad-hominem fallacy.

Sleepy wrote: »

The topic isn't about respecting people, it's about respecting beliefs. I'm of the opinion that respect, like trust, has to be earned. I'll be polite and "respectful" to people I don't respect, who of us doesn't have to be on a daily basis?

Your post isn't about respecting beliefs, it's about disrespecting people.

As long as I'm as entitled to my view that someone is an utter waste of brain matter for holding idea X, I guess that person has to be entitled to believe X.

Saying that someone is an "utter waste of brain matter" for believing something isn't attacking the belief but the individual who holds that belief. It is evident extremism.

Sleepy wrote: »

Where's the imposition of atheism in that post? Even the sentence "There's no proof that any god(s) exist" isn't atheist, in fact, I'd imagine many theists (either side of the fence of agnosticism) could agree with that statement given the converse definitions of faith and proof.

Leaving Douglas Adams aside. Your extreme approach to funding the study of world belief systems for example. Atheists and agnostics even study these fields in order to better understand a large section of society. While there are a large number of adherents to any faith, there should be the analysis of world religions. Even if there aren't, there needs to be an adequate investigation into the past. Do you honestly suggest that we should stop funding philosophy or ancient classics on this basis? Indeed, should we ban every single discipline that people don't like?

It's anti-intellectual to the core.

Likewise your point of view as to how religion should be studied in schools is horribly anti-theist in nature. Proper separation would be to take an impartial view. Some people think X, Other people think Y, and other people think Z would be a better answer.

Sleepy wrote: »

An insistence on separation of church and state isn't atheism.

This isn't separation. Separation implies that the State is impartial to matters of religion. It doesn't imply that there should be no faith schools in the State, nor does it apply that people of faith shouldn't be able to adequately articulate their views. Many Christians are supportive of church - state separation, but anti-theists and atheists tend to go beyond the remit of mere State secularism. The French case of banning headscarves in schools is a typical example of the State going beyond mere State secularism in imposing how people should profess their religious beliefs.

nozzferrahhtoo

smiles302 wrote: »

What does it mean to say you respect someone else's beliefs?

To me it means that you do not worry about what someone believes until they present that belief in public, especially in a situation where something else is based on it.

Take for example the belief in god.

1) A person believes in god to my knowledge. No skin off my nose. Nothing to do with me. I respect that
2) A person espouses that belief in public, fair enough, I still do not care. I respect that.
3) A person says “Because there is a god I think that….” this is where I am forced, not by myself but their use of god as data, to stop and say “Hang on… everything after the “that” is predicated on there being a god… the onus is now on you to establish that predicate as true.

In other words keep personal faith personal, but use it as data in an argument or opinion then be ready to defend it.

Alas “respecting” peoples belief has more and more come to mean “accept it and don’t ever question it” which I abhor and am not likely to change my attitude any time soon. It is similar to how the phrase "be open minded" has come to mean "accept what I am saying".

To put all this another way, if you wanted a sound byte from me or some such, I would say "We should respect the holder of beliefs, not the beliefs themselves" and if someone espouses a belief or opinion I respect them enough to operate on the premise that they are intellectually capable of defending it.

CDfm

Why don't we widen the definition of beliefs a bit so we don't get bogged down in the arguments about a spiritual belief or a deity.

Someone believing in ghosts won't affect another person.

So if we move the idea of a deity to one side you are left with moral values.

You don't need to be religious to be homophobic or right wing and you do not have to be a atheist to be socialist.

What about drug use, some people believe that is their right ? A christian might believe homosexuality is wrong but tolerate it in others but not for themselves.

So if you are to assess tolerating beliefs, you need to assess how those beliefs affect others.

Vegetarian versus meat eater , homophobic football supporter vs non homophobe, socialist vs conservative.

You do not need to believe in a god to want others to change their lifestyles etc. Take the Green Party, they in government with single digit percentage of the national vote, adding taxes and responsibilties on the rest of us. Or indeed a vegetarian who will not serve their guests a non vegetarian alternative. Do they respect others beliefs.???

Religion is not the only source of moral values or intolerence.

Sleepy

Jakkass wrote: »

Your post isn't about respecting beliefs, it's about disrespecting people.

As I already said, I don't feel under any obligation to respect people as a default position. It's something to be earned rather than feel entitled to imo.

Saying that someone is an "utter waste of brain matter" for believing something isn't attacking the belief but the individual who holds that belief. It is evident extremism.

Take an acquantice of mine as an example: 600 point leaving cert, a Starred First from Cambridge University in a science subject and he's just gone back to college to study theology and become a Catholic priest. That, to me, is a waste of a human resource. This individual could make a meaningful contribution to the search for a cure for cancer, AIDS, breaking the speed of light barrier etc but has decided instead not to use his massive intelect. I can't see that as a good thing any more than I could see it a good thing if he decided to open a "new-age" shop selling incense and crystals etc. He's a good person and I'm sure he'll offer his flock much comfort and support during difficult times for them but it doesn't take a first class mind to do that. That's a waste.

Leaving Douglas Adams aside. Your extreme approach to funding the study of world belief systems for example. Atheists and agnostics even study these fields in order to better understand a large section of society. While there are a large number of adherents to any faith, there should be the analysis of world religions. Even if there aren't, there needs to be an adequate investigation into the past. Do you honestly suggest that we should stop funding philosophy or ancient classics on this basis? Indeed, should we ban every single discipline that people don't like?

It's anti-intellectual to the core.

Philosophy is a useful subject that exercises the mind and is great for developing both logical and latteral thinking. While I can see the interest in studying subjects like Ancient Classics, I'm not sure of the value for money it represents to the state in funding it's study, particularly at undergraduate level.

Note I didn't suggest that we should ban theology, just that I'd see it as an extremely wasteful use of state resources to fund it.

Likewise your point of view as to how religion should be studied in schools is horribly anti-theist in nature. Proper separation would be to take an impartial view. Some people think X, Other people think Y, and other people think Z would be a better answer.

I'd rather kids could read, write, logically evaluate etc. than tell me the differences in theology between the various Christian Sects, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism etc.

I'm not so fundamentalist in my approach that I believe the various religions or their impact on history should be ignored (the lessons of corruption from the history of the Borgias would make a good addition to our current history curriculum, imho), I just fail to see any value in teaching children much about the belief systems themselves unless we're to consider those belief systems as conferring special status to the adherrants of those religions.

This isn't separation. Separation implies that the State is impartial to matters of religion. It doesn't imply that there should be no faith schools in the State, nor does it apply that people of faith shouldn't be able to adequately articulate their views. Many Christians are supportive of church - state separation, but anti-theists and atheists tend to go beyond the remit of mere State secularism. The French case of banning headscarves in schools is a typical example of the State going beyond mere State secularism in imposing how people should profess their religious beliefs.

Impartial to matters of religion is impossible if any religion is given special status. If we allow headscarves to be worn for religious reasons, we must also allow crucifixes, niqāb, Kirpan etc.

If we allow Catholic schools to preach their message alongside the state curriculum teaching children about the life of Jesus Christ and his status as a deity as an equal truth to the fact that 2 + 2 = 4 (something I object to fundamentally I'll admit, a logically reasoned truth being more valid than a faith-based belief to any reasoned examination) then we must also allow any interpretation of any other religion to be taught as just as solid a fact: including the malign varients of Islam that preach Jihad against the western world. That is not acceptable to me. Nor is the idea that a child can bring a weapon (however ceremonial or dull it's edge) into a school.

Taking CDfm's point on board, if we are to allow religious movements to run schools (and fund them as a state), it follows that we should be allowing and funding the Scientologists to further their ponzi scheme in the same fashion, White supremacists to teach their children than Jews, Blacks and Chinese are inferior to them, Fred Phelps and his ilk to teach the bigoted notions that homosexuality is so evil a crime it warrants the death penalty, Falasha to teach that Female Genital Mutilation is acceptable, etc. etc. etc.

Advocating that any unfounded belief (and by it's very definition faith is unfounded) can be taught alongside facts in schools should enough parents want those beliefs taugh, whilst also advocating equality means that the above scenarios must be allowed.

It seems to me that we can either have equality (where no unfounded beliefs may be taught in schools) or we can have inequality where we pick and choose unfounded beliefs to be taught in our schools. To me, equality is more valuable than making it easier for people to indoctrinate their children with their belief system.

Personally, I do believe that the world would be a better place without religion and unreasoned dogma of all types. I believe that humanity would advance more quickly without adherance to out-dated dogma and the concept that having a strong enough faith in something makes it valid. I am not naieve enough to think that this can be forced on people, nor do I believe it should be forced on people any more than Islam, Heterosexuality, White Supremacism of Child Mutilation.

seamus

I think the primary fallacy that we have problems with when this topic comes up, is the idea that one person's belief is more important than another's because one person finds the other's offensive.

For example, Jane believes that you must say grace before a meal, to do otherwise is blasphemous and offensive. Joe does not believe that you need to say grace before a meal.

From the outset, we automatically assign more need for respect to Jane's belief simply because there is emotion attached to it. Somehow we intrinsically link respecting someone's beliefs with not upsetting that person - a complete failure (of both the believer and the observer) to disconnect the individual from their belief.

Where an impasse happens (i.e. Jane and Joe sit down for dinner), the automatic compromise is to appease the person who will be most offended, and in this case allow Jane to say grace. This however, fundamentally disrespects the other person - Jane is effectively throwing a tantrum (or threatening to) to get her own way.

And this is something which society needs to break - respect the person's right to be offended, but don't avoid offending that person. The most obvious example of this is the publication of offensive images of Muhammed. There is no similar bans put in place for offensive images of Jesus or whoever, yet because Muslims are perceived to be more offended, the automatic reaction is to play happy families and avoid offending them - at everyone else's expense.

We need to automatically recognise that the more offensive someone finds a particular action, due to religious belief, the less respect we should show to them because they, by their offense, are intrisincally disrespecting ours.

Dudess

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yep, the snorefest that is the constant "Atheists are smug" claim.

Also, some people, in a seeming attempt to nail their ultra right-on colours to the mast, feel it's not our right (especially us in the West - whatever that has to do with anything) to criticise brutal practices, e.g. those that are part of Sharia law. If these practices were not religious/cultural it would be ok to criticise them, but when they're in the context of religion/culture it's "not our right", which is taking respect for others' beliefs too far. Brutality is brutality is brutality.

CDfm

Sleepy wrote: »

Taking CDfm's point on board, if we are to allow religious movements to run schools (and fund them as a state), it follows that we should be allowing and funding the Scientologists to further their ponzi scheme in the same fashion, White supremacists to teach their children than Jews, Blacks and Chinese are inferior to them, Fred Phelps and his ilk to teach the bigoted notions that homosexuality is so evil a crime it warrants the death penalty, Falasha to teach that Female Genital Mutilation is acceptable, etc. etc. etc..

Thanks Sleepy - just to develop it a bit further.

I used to post in A&A and usually it was the ethics and philosophy stuff that interested me. You would get the odd poster who was a right a****** when it came to others beliefs but in the main very thoughtful people, but there is always one and it is probably the one that causes the problems. So respect goes both ways.

( I actually stopped posting there because of a bereavement and just did not get into it again and must do a flyby to wish people a happy Xmas etc ).

The "Render unto Caesar" bit in the Gospels captures it and this is a good Wiki on it

Mohandas K. Gandhi shared this perspective. He wrote:

Jesus evaded the direct question put to him because it was a trap. He was in no way bound to answer it. He therefore asked to see the coin for taxes. And then said with withering scorn, “How can you who traffic in Caesar’s coins and thus receive what to you are benefits of Caesar’s rule refuse to pay taxes?” Jesus’s whole preaching and practice point unmistakably to noncooperation, which necessarily includes nonpayment of taxes.[10]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar%E2%80%A6

In essence, you have moral values , and that includes respecting others etc, but it also is a juggling act.

One the examples you cite, lots of them are awful , and the bootom line is that Christians should not go along with them.

A racist is a racist and a psycho is a psycho and whether or not they use a religious belief to justify their behavior it is the same thing. The Romans used crucifiction to instil fear etc and at a basic level lots of the evil things done in the name of religion are there to do the same thing.

Whether, a concience , morals is derived from memes or God, not even Dawkins knows but societies do evolve. If the Romans knew about the psychology of fear and enforcement and how to work it -then others do to.

So if you use a "belief" to reinforce compliance then you are on to a winner if you instill enough fear.

The basic tenets of a religion and its moral outlook may be agreed upon as good, like Dawkins and his good buddy the Bishop of Oxford having afternoon tea. Both seem like good men to me -even if I find Dawkins intolerant (though I am biased) -I also find vegetarians and lots of environmentalists intolerant.

That does not mean the moral or religious beliefs are wrong but the organisations that are built around them are.

If you believe we are omnivores by evolution and need meat then being vegetarian will be wrong.

Its not too long ago that phrenology was looked at as a valid scientific field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology and you had alchemy from which modern science owes a lot to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy_and_chemistry_in_medieval_Islam

So I would say that science or a knowledge basis is equally culpable here and you will get evil or misguided people with the skills to use it for their own ends. Chemists are not all pharmacists but some will become heroin suppliers etc.

Sleepy

CDfm wrote: »

Thanks Sleepy - just to develop it a bit further.

The "Render unto Caesar" bit in the Gospels captures it and this is a good Wiki on it

Apologies but I'm not going to read that. I can't accept the Bible as a source of solid argument since I don't believe in it.

In essence, you have moral values , and that includes respecting others etc, but it also is a juggling act.

One the examples you cite, lots of them are awful , and the bootom line is that Christians should not go along with them.

Why not? Is that view not offensive to Scientologists? Jews?

A racist is a racist and a psycho is a psycho and whether or not they use a religious belief to justify their behavior it is the same thing.

And what of a sexist? Islam treats women as chattel.
Or homophobia? The Christian religions seem to vary from condemning someone for acting on the "otherwise unsinful" homosexual desires to claiming homosexuality is an abomination and homosexuals should be killed.
Or assault? Judaism mutilates it's male children

The problem here is that even some of the more "moderate" faiths have practices, beliefs and customs which are abhorrent to most modern people of other faiths, moral codes or inconsistent with the unalienable rights of mankind in the modern world.

Giving one (particularly self-identifying) group preferential treatment over another is always going to lead to trouble in any human society - just look to the north of this island, Palestine, the deep South etc.

If we hold equality as an inalienable human rights which it seems we do:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights wrote:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Then it follows that all creeds must be afforded the same level of inclusion in the laws of society and it's education system. Since some creeds are intolerable to the vast majority, and even many of the 'moderate' creeds have extremely questionable (or simply downright abhorrant) practices or beliefs, the only equitable solution is to grant no legal rights or entitlements to religion beyond the right to hold that belief in one's own mind and, if we can agree on the right to freedom of speech, to espouse that belief.

...

If you believe we are omnivores by evolution and need meat then being vegetarian will be wrong.

Its not too long ago that phrenology was looked at as a valid scientific field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology and you had alchemy from which modern science owes a lot to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy_and_chemistry_in_medieval_Islam

So I would say that science or a knowledge basis is equally culpable here and you will get evil or misguided people with the skills to use it for their own ends. Chemists are not all pharmacists but some will become heroin suppliers etc.

Since our body has the requisite tools to eat meat and there is significant suggestion that our brains could not have evolved without certain proteins present in our brain matter, I would certainly be on the side of omniverous diet being better for humans. However, I don't recall Vegetarians ever being granted a right to run their own schools or have a subject devoted to their practices in our classrooms.

Science as a knowledge base is of course fallible. However, and it's a very, very big "however", it continually evolves as humanity progresses and the scientific method is inherantly self-improving. Religious belief systems, I'm afraid, aren't (unless one believes that a (wo)man can speak with the voice of the deity in question, which, requiring a belief in the deity itself as a pre-cursor is not going to be accepted by non adherrants. David Koresh springs to mind as a good case in point here).

prinz

Sleepy wrote: »

Apologies but I'm not going to read that. I can't accept the Bible as a source of solid argument since I don't believe in it..

You don't believe in the Bible? Ever checked a bookshop? Hotel room drawer?

You are going to go far in debates with Christians then. I'm not a Marxist but I've read the Communist Manifesto. I am not a fascist but I have read Mein Kampf. Might not agree with everything they say but they has some valid points to think about and argue against.

To pointedly ignore the wisdom contained in the Bible (New Testament and Old) because you don't believe in Christianity/religion/God is rather childish to say the least as there are vast sections which require no belief in a deity whatsoever.

CDfm

Sleepy wrote: »

Apologies but I'm not going to read that. I can't accept the Bible as a source of solid argument since I don't believe in it.

I meant it as a philosophical argument it has merit and was commented upon by Gandhi for its sophistication. In the words of Bart Simpson " Damned if you do, and damned if you don't"

Why not? Is that view not offensive to Scientologists? Jews?

It may be but I am not a scientologist but am tolerant of them. They don't bother me.

And what of a sexist? Islam treats women as chattel.
Or homophobia? The Christian religions seem to vary from condemning someone for acting on the "otherwise unsinful" homosexual desires to claiming homosexuality is an abomination and homosexuals should be killed.
Or assault? Judaism mutilates it's male children

Those are not my beliefs.

I used the A&A example as it says it all. Tolerance and moral values are not exclusively owned by any faith but are a human thing wherever they are from.

The problem here is that even some of the more "moderate" faiths have practices, beliefs and customs which are abhorrent to most modern people of other faiths, moral codes or inconsistent with the unalienable rights of mankind in the modern world.

But you not need faith to be intolerant. You can have a political or "scientific" belief .

Giving one (particularly self-identifying) group preferential treatment over another is always going to lead to trouble in any human society - just look to the north of this island, Palestine, the deep South etc.

If we hold equality as an inalienable human rights which it seems we do:

You always will have that & tribal and caste systems have evolved where you have not had race or religion.

Then it follows that all creeds must be afforded the same level of inclusion in the laws of society and it's education system. Since some creeds are intolerable to the vast majority, and even many of the 'moderate' creeds have extremely questionable (or simply downright abhorrant) practices or beliefs, the only equitable solution is to grant no legal rights or entitlements to religion beyond the right to hold that belief in one's own mind and, if we can agree on the right to freedom of speech, to espouse that belief.

Its not exclusive to religion and even boards is not a democracy :pac:

( I see a Dav Cult springing up )

Since our body has the requisite tools to eat meat and there is significant suggestion that our brains could not have evolved without certain proteins present in our brain matter, I would certainly be on the side of omniverous diet being better for humans. However, I don't recall Vegetarians ever being granted a right to run their own schools or have a subject devoted to their practices in our classrooms.

And why not ??

When have you ever gone to a Vegetarian House and gotten a meat option.

Science as a knowledge base is of course fallible. However, and it's a very, very big "however", it continually evolves as humanity progresses and the scientific method is inherantly self-improving. Religious belief systems, I'm afraid, aren't (unless one believes that a (wo)man can speak with the voice of the deity in question, which, requiring a belief in the deity itself as a pre-cursor is not going to be accepted by non adherrants. David Koresh springs to mind as a good case in point here).

Since when is science always self improving. Thats like the gun lobby saying "guns don't kill people , people kill people".

The electric chair is more inhumane than either the guillotine or long drop hanging as a method of execution and lethal injection takes longer and the executee knows what is happening.

Science has come up with all sort of addictive drugs for sale but not a drug that cures addiction.

Nucleur weapons - where is the antidote for radiation poisoning ??

So scientific discovery and advancement is not inherently self improving.

faceman

I think the wider issue isnt just respect but also ignorance, and it applies to all sides of the debate.

Let me give you a simple analogy. Would you dismiss a movie as being a crap without seeing it? Of course not.

Therein lies the problem. When I was a teen, i lived abroad in a very multi religious school. We had every religion from Jane Muslims to Rastas. And there were A&A punters too. Obviously religion wasnt taught in the school but we did as class not too dissimilar humanities instead. We learnt about each religion that was in our year both thought from a neutral perspective and then with each group presenting their views and beliefs.

As a result of that I gained a respect for many of the people and their beliefs. The right combination of education and religious practice meant most of my classmates held their beliefs without prejudice to anyone elses beliefs.

And in similar vain, without having had the opportunity to learn about other religions it would have been ignorant of me to cast any judgement on the religion or the people who believe in it, nor do i have any issue with them practising it publically as long as it brings no harm to others.

I believe taking religion out of schools is wrong (I refer to the above teaching of religion where it is done for educational purposes) as it creates a stigma with religion, particular against minorities in society, and pushes an atheist agenda.

CDfm

faceman wrote: »

I believe taking religion out of schools is wrong (I refer to the above teaching of religion where it is done for educational purposes) as it creates a stigma with religion, particular against minorities in society, and pushes an atheist agenda.

Very eloquent and you need some sort of middle ground and an atheist agenda is not a neutral one.

CDfm

prinz wrote: »

To pointedly ignore the wisdom contained in the Bible (New Testament and Old) because you don't believe in Christianity/religion/God is rather childish to say the least as there are vast sections which require no belief in a deity whatsoever.

The quote I used was from Gandhi - so it was not really a religious tract as such at all.

Eliot Rosewater

faceman wrote: »

I believe taking religion out of schools is wrong (I refer to the above teaching of religion where it is done for educational purposes) as it creates a stigma with religion, particular against minorities in society, and pushes an atheist agenda.

I presume that when atheists talk about taking religion out of schools they merely mean that they don't want it taught as fact. Are a lot of atheists actually against the kind of general education you had, where one learns about different religions without being told that a particular one (or any one at all) is right or wrong?

prinz wrote: »

To pointedly ignore the wisdom contained in the Bible (New Testament and Old) because you don't believe in Christianity/religion/God is rather childish to say the least as there are vast sections which require no belief in a deity whatsoever.

The Bible also has an aesthetic value. It's fair to say that fundamentalist Christians lose out on some forms of contentment because they are barred from appreciating, say, the theory of evolution and some of the intrigue to be found within. However I think the argument can also be reversed: people who refuse to read the Bible are depriving themselves of a form of pleasure. I'm not religious but I still find it enjoyable.

prinz

As a religious person myself I'd favour religion be taken out of schools, at least how it is in Ireland. It's better no religion at all is taught than some of it being taught by people ill equipped to be doing so. The situation in a lot of Irish primary schools is shocking, with teachers sometime with no interest in or belief in a particular religion teaching a religion class (primarily Roman Catholicism) and often times getting in disastrously wrong. I'd prefer religious instruction be left outside of state schools and done by some one qualified on your own time, it should then be a subject of choice in secondary level as an all encompassing subject.. perhaps part of a world cultures subject.

I had a similar experience to the poster earlier - we got exposed to all the major religions and studied each a bit, had various guests from some of them in to talk to us about their faith and how they live it. This was in a school run by a Catholic Order too, and there was no more emphasis put on Catholicism than on Islam or Judaism or Zoroastrianism. They took a fantastic approach that suited the students (who were a mixture of many faiths).

Sleepy

prinz wrote: »

You don't believe in the Bible? Ever checked a bookshop? Hotel room drawer?

You are going to go far in debates with Christians then. I'm not a Marxist but I've read the Communist Manifesto. I am not a fascist but I have read Mein Kampf. Might not agree with everything they say but they has some valid points to think about and argue against.

To pointedly ignore the wisdom contained in the Bible (New Testament and Old) because you don't believe in Christianity/religion/God is rather childish to say the least as there are vast sections which require no belief in a deity whatsoever.

CDfm wrote: »

I meant it as a philosophical argument it has merit and was commented upon by Gandhi for its sophistication. In the words of Bart Simpson " Damned if you do, and damned if you don't"

I've read the Bible, I just can't accept it as a rational basis for logical argument since while some of what it espouses is sensible or aspirationally ideal, there's also an awful lot of it which is either fundamentally wrong, open to any interpretation the reader chooses to make it fit or morally reprehensible.

It may be but I am not a scientologist but am tolerant of them. They don't bother me.

All that's required for evil to triumph etc...

Those are not my beliefs.

But if your beliefs are to be accepted, and you are to be allowed place them side by side with facts in an educational environment when your beliefs have no firmer grounding than theirs why shouldn't theirs be? Because it disagrees with the areas of morality you and I agree on? What if they outnumber us? Should we have to obey Sharia law? Mutilate our infant children? Make our wives wear veils?

I used the A&A example as it says it all. Tolerance and moral values are not exclusively owned by any faith but are a human thing wherever they are from.

But you not need faith to be intolerant. You can have a political or "scientific" belief .

Which is why I chose the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a basis for the moral argument that equality is a desirable feature of society: because, in principle at least, the vast majority of nations have signed up to it as something to aspire to.

I weigh the right of all to be equal to supercede the right of the religious to indoctrinate others childrens via the education system; the right of people to security of person to supercede the right of a parent to mutilate their child or deny them medical attention, the right of a woman to equality to supercede her father's right to sell her for cattle.

I will never be tolerant of someone's right to harm another or to attempt to justify such harm by claiming that their deity judges it as acceptable.

You always will have that & tribal and caste systems have evolved where you have not had race or religion.

Where and when have we not had race or religion in the history of mankind?

Its not exclusive to religion and even boards is not a democracy :pac:

( I see a Dav Cult springing up )

Why not tbh? There's as much reason to worship Dav as there is to hold many other religious ideals true. I see no more reason to worship L. Ron Hubbard. Or any reason to give these new Dav Worshippers any more creedence.

And why not ??

When have you ever gone to a Vegetarian House and gotten a meat option.

3 years ago at my friend Nathan's house.

Why not? In part because AFAIK, there's not been a movement of Vegetarians insisting on vegan-only schools or that children be taught the unfounded belief that it's a good idea to ignore a major food-group. If there were such a group, I'd given them equal audience as I would a Talmud requesting a prayer room to be built at tax-payers expense on school property.

Luckily for the vast majority of vegetarians, it's easy to cater to their beliefs without any impact on anyone else's lives. And that I guess is central to my point. Where your religious views cause no harm to another, I've no problem with them. However, if you pander to one persons religious beliefs, you must pander to all. Even to cater for all Catholics (a group mandated to have homogenous beliefs by the dogma of their religion) in our laws or education system would (and many of the elements of it we have enshrined in our laws at present, do) impinge on the rights of others.

Since when is science always self improving. Thats like the gun lobby saying "guns don't kill people , people kill people".

The electric chair is more inhumane than either the guillotine or long drop hanging as a method of execution and lethal injection takes longer and the executee knows what is happening.

Science has come up with all sort of addictive drugs for sale but not a drug that cures addiction.

Nucleur weapons - where is the antidote for radiation poisoning ??

So scientific discovery and advancement is not inherently self improving.

A scientific theory stands until it is disproven or improved upon by a better theory. Some theories can be fundamentally proven via the use of mathematics, logic and reason. Religious dogma doesn't allow for improvement, nor can conclusive proof ever be achieved short of one of the deities appearing in the sky and even then I'd suspect mass hallucination to be more likely

faceman wrote: »

... nor do i have any issue with them practising it publically as long as it brings no harm to others.

I believe taking religion out of schools is wrong (I refer to the above teaching of religion where it is done for educational purposes) as it creates a stigma with religion, particular against minorities in society, and pushes an atheist agenda.

The problem here is that the practice of many religions does harm people. Sure, it's generally only the children of the adherants to those religions but should they not matter? Should we not be concerned by an honour killing? Or a child being denied medical attention? Or a child being mutilated?

Teaching Religion in the fashion you described as part of a humanities course in schools, I've no problem with. I'd be fully in favour of it were older children to be told the elements of each religion that clash with society's wider held morals (e.g. the treatment of women as second class citizens by many religions, condemnation of homosexuality etc.) than the sanitized versions of each which the faiths PR departments would put forth.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I presume that when atheists talk about taking religion out of schools they merely mean that they don't want it taught as fact. Are a lot of atheists actually against the kind of general education you had, where one learns about different religions without being told that a particular one (or any one at all) is right or wrong?

I personally would probably rather that schools taught children to critically evaluate everything. From religious views to what they read in the papers and hear from the mouths of politicians. It's my opinion that only those capable of self-delusion remain religious when they've examined religion critically but it's not one I have a right to force on anyone elses children any more than they have the right to tell my daughter that she'll burn in hell if she doesn't accept Jesus Christ as her saviour...

The Bible also has an aesthetic value. It's fair to say that fundamentalist Christians lose out on some forms of contentment because they are barred from appreciating, say, the theory of evolution and some of the intrigue to be found within. However I think the argument can also be reversed: people who refuse to read the Bible are depriving themselves of a form of pleasure. I'm not religious but I still find it enjoyable.

Like any badly translated book written by a multitude of authors and edited by others it's fairly inconsistent but some elements of it are enjoyable enough reading.

prinz wrote: »

As a religious person myself I'd favour religion be taken out of schools, at least how it is in Ireland. It's better no religion at all is taught than some of it being taught by people ill equipped to be doing so. The situation in a lot of Irish primary schools is shocking, with teachers sometime with no interest in or belief in a particular religion teaching a religion class (primarily Roman Catholicism) and often times getting in disastrously wrong. I'd prefer religious instruction be left outside of state schools and done by some one qualified on your own time, it should then be a subject of choice in secondary level as an all encompassing subject.. perhaps part of a world .

I've encountered atheists preparing children for their First Communions who were afraid they'd lose their state-paid position if they admitted to no longer considering themselves Catholic.

It's no wonder most Irish "Catholics" don't understand that their beliefs are more Protestant than Catholic, think Jesus was the Immaculate Conception and have no clue what Transubstantiation means or why it's one of the things that separates their religion from "de proddies"...

Mark Hamill

faceman wrote: »

Let me give you a simple analogy. Would you dismiss a movie as being a crap without seeing it? Of course not.

Two words: Uwe Boll

faceman wrote: »

And in similar vain, without having had the opportunity to learn about other religions it would have been ignorant of me to cast any judgement on the religion or the people who believe in it

You dont need to learn very much about other religions to know they are wrong. Just ask the basics about god. The more specific a religion is about what god is to them, the easier it is to point out major flaws in the basic reasoning about him, you always get contradictions because the god a religion devises to satisfy its believers is always more a very powereful person than a perfect omnipotent being, as evidenced by the requirements in religious practise being, if you think about it, completely irrelevent to a perfect omnipotent being. The less specific a religion is, like pantheism, the less reasoning there is to even bother believing in it, because the difference between a completely natural universe and, say, a pantheistic universe are pretty much non-existent.

I'm not saying that religions should necessarily be discounted out of hand (its bad practise, if nothing else), but its not like you would need to read more than a few pages of the lord of the rings to determine it wans't a historical document.

faceman wrote: »

I believe taking religion out of schools is wrong (I refer to the above teaching of religion where it is done for educational purposes) as it creates a stigma with religion, particular against minorities in society, and pushes an atheist agenda.

You can never teach about all religions. There just are too many variations of each religion (how many different types of christianity are there? 100? 1000? More?), and for many you cant compromise and just teach generalities, the minor differences are important to those who believe in them and they will call predjudice whatever you do.

Mark Hamill

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I presume that when atheists talk about taking religion out of schools they merely mean that they don't want it taught as fact. Are a lot of atheists actually against the kind of general education you had, where one learns about different religions without being told that a particular one (or any one at all) is right or wrong?

I wouldn't mind compromising and having a general eduction about religion, but I still would wonder what the point is. School should be for giving kids the ability to critically assess information. This is (not necessarily very well) emphasised in classes like maths and the sciences (junior cert level onwards, anyway) and even history.
We dont have general education for kids about how some people believe in homeopathy, acupuncture or chi, because telling kids that critical thought and rationalality are so important kind of gets underminded when you go on to tell them about a whole rake load of situations where people ignore rationality and where questioning is not appreciated.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The Bible also has an aesthetic value. It's fair to say that fundamentalist Christians lose out on some forms of contentment because they are barred from appreciating, say, the theory of evolution and some of the intrigue to be found within. However I think the argument can also be reversed: people who refuse to read the Bible are depriving themselves of a form of pleasure. I'm not religious but I still find it enjoyable.

Thats incredibly subjective though. I have read the bible, and in my opinion its just awfully written, boring, spends too much time espousing out of date (and sometimes, frankly, the most appaling) morals and is full of (and ends with) poor desu ex machinas. People are no more missing out not reading it that they are missing out not ready the latest chick lit crap.

CDfm

Sleepy wrote: »

Why not tbh? There's as much reason to worship Dav as there is to hold many other religious ideals true. I see no more reason to worship L. Ron Hubbard. Or any reason to give these new Dav Worshippers any more creedence.

Even more when you send in a forum request

3 years ago at my friend Nathan's house.

Tell me it wasn't spaghetti

I gotta know

faceman

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I presume that when atheists talk about taking religion out of schools they merely mean that they don't want it taught as fact. Are a lot of atheists actually against the kind of general education you had, where one learns about different religions without being told that a particular one (or any one at all) is right or wrong?

I would like to think so, but Ive often seen threads in the Spirituality forums where A&A object to the hanging of religious artifacts in schools or hospitals that are religious schools. I would be interested to see a neutral poll on it however.

Sleepy wrote: »

I've read the Bible, I just can't accept it as a rational basis for logical argument since while some of what it espouses is sensible or aspirationally ideal, there's also an awful lot of it which is either fundamentally wrong, open to any interpretation the reader chooses to make it fit or morally reprehensible.

The faithful will argue the opposite.

wrote:

The problem here is that the practice of many religions does harm people. Sure, it's generally only the children of the adherants to those religions but should they not matter? Should we not be concerned by an honour killing? Or a child being denied medical attention? Or a child being mutilated?

Teaching Religion in the fashion you described as part of a humanities course in schools, I've no problem with. I'd be fully in favour of it were older children to be told the elements of each religion that clash with society's wider held morals (e.g. the treatment of women as second class citizens by many religions, condemnation of homosexuality etc.) than the sanitized versions of each which the faiths PR departments would put forth.

This is the wider debate. It fair to say that while some religions have spiritual views that can cause harm or degrade an individual's status or basic human rights, not all faithful to that religion hold that view. Take Islam for example. Some of my former classmates (some of which I am still in touch with) do not treat women as second class citizens. All of them disagree with the fundamentalist view of what Jihad is. What makes them think different? Is it their education? Or how they were mixed with those not of their faith when young? I dont know the answer to it. Education plays a big part.

Maybe its the same reason why many Irish Catholics do not discriminate against the gay community and use condoms?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You dont need to learn very much about other religions to know they are wrong. Just ask the basics about god. The more specific a religion is about what god is to them, the easier it is to point out major flaws in the basic reasoning about him, you always get contradictions because the god a religion devises to satisfy its believers is always more a very powereful person than a perfect omnipotent being, as evidenced by the requirements in religious practise being, if you think about it, completely irrelevent to a perfect omnipotent being. The less specific a religion is, like pantheism, the less reasoning there is to even bother believing in it, because the difference between a completely natural universe and, say, a pantheistic universe are pretty much non-existent.

Have you studied the Koran?

wrote:

You can never teach about all religions. There just are too many variations of each religion (how many different types of christianity are there? 100? 1000? More?), and for many you cant compromise and just teach generalities, the minor differences are important to those who believe in them and they will call predjudice whatever you do.

When I was school, they started by teaching about the religions that were present in the school at the time. As school progressed we then discussed the more controversial issues such as abortion, divorce, homosexuality.

One of the teachers running the Humanities program was an atheist yet his approach to handling the topic of religion was excellent, as was his respect for the religions and the people involved.

One of the most interesting days that I can recall was when one of the teachers, who was English, was asked if he would give a chat about his faith. He was born Catholic and converted to Islam. He was a science teacher FWIW!

CDfm

faceman wrote: »

I would like to think so, but Ive often seen threads in the Spirituality forums where A&A object to the hanging of religious artifacts in schools or hospitals that are religious schools. I would be interested to see a neutral poll on it however.



This is the wider debate. It fair to say that while some religions have spiritual views that can cause harm or degrade an individual's status or basic human rights, not all faithful to that religion hold that view. Take Islam for example. Some of my former classmates (some of which I am still in touch with) do not treat women as second class citizens. All of them disagree with the fundamentalist view of what Jihad is. What makes them think different? Is it their education? Or how they were mixed with those not of their faith when young? I dont know the answer to it. Education plays a big part.

Also, some Atheists often lump all religions and together, irrespective of the beliefs of the individual they are discussing matters with.

So a person with a belief in God is likely to recieve the same lecture as a fundamental christian or muslim.

Thats not very realist or tolerant.

Mark Hamill

faceman wrote: »

Have you studied the Koran?

Not really, have you?
I have, however, spoken to muslims, and had very long and detailed discussions with them on boards. I didn't need to read the koran to see the fallacies contained in believing in it.

Mark Hamill

faceman wrote: »

I would like to think so, but Ive often seen threads in the Spirituality forums where A&A object to the hanging of religious artifacts in schools or hospitals that are religious schools. I would be interested to see a neutral poll on it however.

I think the issue with that is one of secularisation. A supposedly secular government should not favour representation of one religion over any other (they shouldn't represent any religion at all), this means that state schools and hospitals, and the employees working within, also should not show favour to any religion.
The problem some people have with religious schools is because of the unbalanced representation they have in the school system (the vast majority of schools in Ireland are christian schools) and the amount of government funding they get.
I would have to see thsi poll you are talking about, but I think many people would have a problem with a self funded religious school having a religious iconography on the walls.

faceman wrote: »

The faithful will argue the opposite.

The faithful will argue a lot of things, most quite irrationally.

faceman wrote: »

This is the wider debate. It fair to say that while some religions have spiritual views that can cause harm or degrade an individual's status or basic human rights, not all faithful to that religion hold that view. Take Islam for example. Some of my former classmates (some of which I am still in touch with) do not treat women as second class citizens. All of them disagree with the fundamentalist view of what Jihad is. What makes them think different? Is it their education? Or how they were mixed with those not of their faith when young? I dont know the answer to it. Education plays a big part.

Maybe its the same reason why many Irish Catholics do not discriminate against the gay community and use condoms?

So you give examples where people completely ignore what their religion tells them to do, giving examples of the bad things they avoid doing by picking and choosing the bits of religion they like, and this is somehow a point in religions favour?

Mark Hamill

CDfm wrote: »

Also, some Atheists often lump all religions and together, irrespective of the beliefs of the individual they are discussing matters with.

Really, like who?

CDfm wrote: »

So a person with a belief in God is likely to recieve the same lecture as a fundamental christian or muslim.

Thats not very realist or tolerant.

And I'm sure this is a perfectly realist and tolerant viewpoint :rolleyes:

CDfm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Really, like who?

It happened me in A&A - but what also happened was I got some pm's from posters saying -extremists winding you up.

I largely posted there to do with philosophy ,ethics, moral questions etc.

So on balance posting in A&A was a very positive experience for me.

faceman

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Not really, have you?
I have, however, spoken to muslims, and had very long and detailed discussions with them on boards. I didn't need to read the koran to see the fallacies contained in believing in it.

Yes I have to some degree, see my previous post. It has many similarities to the KJ Bible.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So you give examples where people completely ignore what their religion tells them to do, giving examples of the bad things they avoid doing by picking and choosing the bits of religion they like, and this is somehow a point in religions favour?

Whats the issue with someone faithful making a decision, in free will, to not follow a particular part of their religion?

CDfm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The faithful will argue a lot of things, most quite irrationally.


So you give examples where people completely ignore what their religion tells them to do, giving examples of the bad things they avoid doing by picking and choosing the bits of religion they like, and this is somehow a point in religions favour?

A good point - but there is a lot of debate even among atheists about the origans of beliefs and moral values and their transmission in society - memes for example.

EDIT - a wiki for those not familiar with memetics - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics

The process of cultural beliefs and values is complicated and individual beliefs (religious or not) do not account for them. Memes being to thoughts and values what genes are to evolution. I hope I am explaining that correctly.

Mark Hamill

faceman wrote: »

Whats the issue with someone faithful making a decision, in free will, to not follow a particular part of their religion?

If religions have so many bad teachings that people just pick and choose the bits that suit them, then it kind of makes religion redundant. You cant on the one hand accept that religions have bad teachings, but then justify the rest of religion by saying you dont have to accept the bad bits. Religions are supposed to be an understanding of reality, of god and the universe. You can no more pick and choose which bits you like (and expect those bits to actually conform to reality simply because you accept them and the other bits to be lies because you dont like them) than you can pick and choose where and when you want gravity to affect you, based on when it suits you to be attracted to the ground.

It just demonstrates religion the stuff of snakeoil salesmen, its definition and its implications fluid so it can suit any buyer, as opposed to an understood universal truth which says something like "regardless of whether or not you like, gravity will pull you down, because thats what gravity does". If religion cared if it was true, then you shouldn't be able to pick and choose what you like.

Mark Hamill

CDfm wrote: »

A good point - but there is a lot of debate even among atheists about the origans of beliefs and moral values and their transmission in society - memes for example.

EDIT - a wiki for those not familiar with memetics - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics

The process of cultural beliefs and values is complicated and individual beliefs (religious or not) do not account for them. Memes being to thoughts and values what genes are to evolution. I hope I am explaining that correctly.

I'm not sure that that has much to do with the particular point I was making....

CDfm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm not sure that that has much to do with the particular point I was making....

I am not so sure.

Religion is not our only source of values and beliefs.

You cant just select religious based beliefs for special treatment.

I have discussed abortion and pain management of the terminally ill with atheists whose views are more conservative and thought out than theists.

So the ethical considerations of believers and non-believers may be the same.

An atheist and believer may both hold the belief that life is sacred ,but for the atheist it may be instictive "because it is" .

So from a practical point of view the origan of value and beliefs whether they are from culture, contemplation on a 2000 year old book, god or culture is irrelevant.

Mark Hamill

CDfm wrote: »

I am not so sure.

Religion is not our only source of values and beliefs.

You cant just select religious based beliefs for special treatment.

I have discussed abortion and pain management of the terminally ill with atheists whose views are more conservative and thought out than theists.

So the ethical considerations of believers and non-believers may be the same.

An atheist and believer may both hold the belief that life is sacred ,but for the atheist it may be instictive "because it is" .

So from a practical point of view the origan of value and beliefs whether they are from culture, contemplation on a 2000 year old book, god or culture is irrelevant.

Again I'm not sure of how this disputes my point. Our morals and beliefs come from a lot of places, but this doesn't change the fact that some sources are much more justifiable than others. It is a big mark against religion that people are pretty much expected to pick and choose what they believe about it, it just doesn't gel with religion supposedly being a representation of the truth - you dont get to pick and choose the truth.

CDfm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Again I'm not sure of how this disputes my point. Our morals and beliefs come from a lot of places, but this doesn't change the fact that some sources are much more justifiable than others. It is a big mark against religion that people are pretty much expected to pick and choose what they believe about it, it just doesn't gel with religion supposedly being a representation of the truth - you dont get to pick and choose the truth.

Thanks.

Its not so much to dispute but discuss.

Ethics are not black or white and the way I look at it is that the may influence you.

I saw some statistics in a newspaper recently where Iran & China were 1 & 2 in the death penaly charts. Where to us their application of their laws are extreme or arbitrary.

A value system will give you a certain direction but it does not oblige you to follow it - that is your own choice. A bit like a shellfish eating vegetarian really.

So the values of the society that you live in may be a more important issue.

Media availability these days may be more important than religious classes in school.

AngryBadger

Why has everyone in this thread automatically assumed "beliefs" refers to religion?

Notwithstanding my complete disdain for organised religion, respect for other peoples "beliefs" extends far beyond their faith in fictional beings.

Just something to consider.